OK, well, if you allow me, I will only respond to this last post of yours and leave you to it, no need to respond.HonestlyNow wrote:I like Rand's writings because she gets to the core of the issue. Powerful words that make sense. Is she
perfect? Of course not.
How are you defining capitalism, then?daozen wrote:Capitalism loves Rand's objectivism as she helps justify the system, a selfish system that fails to acknoledge the communal nature of human beings, depends on endless consumption, allows hierarchies to develope a section of people with overwhelming power over others, and has devastating effects on the environment, hence our selves.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
The so-called "capitalism" we are experiencing is mixed in with state controls ad nauseum. Our current system gives capitalism a bad name, it is not true laissez-faire capitalism. Such an animal, we have yet to experience. Heck, we can't even own our own means of exchange i.e. money, without the state getting involved.
Where does a system based on true individual rights disallow people from being social and being benevolent (as I infer from your characterization of man having a "communal nature"), where all actions and agreements between people are voluntary in nature, and those that are not, would not be tolerated. This would, of course, necessitate a certain number of persons in said society to hold a proper rational philosophy to keep any thugs in their place, hence the importance of philosophy.
Now, if by "communal nature", you're saying that the proper social system should be communism/socialism/altruism . . . which all say that man does not exist for his own sake, but for the sake of others. Others have hold over your life. You have a hold over another's life. By what standards? How does one decide what is owed and what can be taken from another? Is this life, or anti-life? Can a system as such be voluntary, and stay voluntary? Once it's not voluntary, then are you saying that the initiation of force is a moral action . . . because . . .why? Because the individual owes his life to the greater good.
Sorry, that doesn't work for me.
I realize that this is all off-topic.
There being no shortage of writing on this all important subject, and me not being a professor of same, and no end of arguments between the theories of differing social systems, I will now leave you to your own research and thinking on this matter.
As you say the concept of "property" is a fundamental one in capitalism. I argue that it's a delusional one. It's labeled a right, which predesposes a will to defend it but if you think about it all "property" has been stolen from someone or something and it's a way to justifty it. At the same time capitalism was installed after those in power had most land and most of everything really, so it was convinient to bring in laws and a system to protect it. Isn't the whole of america property of the indians? Oh well, if you kill them you can now call all of the resources "yours" I guess. Most wealth most people have has has been inherited from someone.
Capitalism also installs and reinforces a competitive mentality (that developed naturally to a world of scarcity we no longer live in), where one's survival depends on stepping on your fellow man one way or another. Is it any wonder we have a super elite playing puppets with the rest of the world in order to benefit themselves? They are nothing but the best player's in this silly game. This argument that there's "too much goverment intervention" fails to realize that most governments are only fronts to large corporations which are the one's that trully make the laws and calls that benefit them. On the other hand imagine the atrocites some corporations would get away with without gov intervention.
Capitalism also works under the employer/employee/consumer cycle of endless consuption, it DEPENDS on consumption, which is a self destructive cycle in a planet with limited resources. Companies benefit from scarcity. In the same way diamonds are precious because they are scarce, Cocacola benefits from polluted bodies of water as it vastly increases bottled water sales dramatically. If your grandma was told she would once have to pay for bottled water she would have laughed.
No one befits from solving problems that don't profit, the problem of hunger and poverty (the main cause of violence and crime) has no profit, which is why it's only getting worse. The myth of uncurable cancer and AIDS prolong sickness, and benefits a lot more from squeezing money slowly that than from curing it. The medical industry in the US is the most profitable of them all!
I'm not a communist, a socialist or anything else, those philosphies are static and there's no need to label. The universe is dynamic and knowledge needs to keep moving always, which is something science embraces. I don't have all the answers no one does, I do realize though, that what's best for me, being as selfish as I can be, is that my community has the same quality of life as I do, and nowadays the world is my community, like it or not. What's best for me is what's best for my community not some alien "greater good". The most violent countries are the one's where the most social stratification there is, and the reverse is also very true. Why would I be afraid of theft if everyone else has the same acces to resources. With the technology we have today that is easily possible.
Plus, the free market is only as free as your wallet allows, if you are born in a poor family, which most of the world does, do you have any real choice in terms of what you do other than get the highest paying job you can get and try to survive that way, you are a slave to the system from birth. Before, owners took care of their slaves, today slaves take care of their own, and as it's been said before in here, no one is more enslaved than those who foolishly think they are free.